This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 30 October 2014, At: 13:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Foodservice BusinessResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wfbr20

Information Sources Used by MillennialRestaurant Wine ConsumersRhonda Hammond a , Natalia Velikova b & Tim H. Dodd ba Hospitality & Restaurant Management, School of HumanEnvironmental Sciences, University of Arkansas , Fayetteville , AR ,USAb Department of Nutrition, Hospitality, and Retailing , Texas TechUniversity , Lubbock , TX , USAPublished online: 21 Nov 2013.

To cite this article: Rhonda Hammond , Natalia Velikova & Tim H. Dodd (2013) Information SourcesUsed by Millennial Restaurant Wine Consumers, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 16:5,468-485, DOI: 10.1080/15378020.2013.850381

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2013.850381

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 16:468–485, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1537-8020 print/1537-8039 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15378020.2013.850381

Information Sources Used by MillennialRestaurant Wine Consumers

RHONDA HAMMONDHospitality & Restaurant Management, School of Human Environmental Sciences,

University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA

NATALIA VELIKOVA and TIM H. DODDDepartment of Nutrition, Hospitality, and Retailing, Texas Tech University,

Lubbock, TX, USA

An on-line survey was used to identify information sources usedby U.S. Millennials for restaurant wine purchases based on expe-rience, involvement, and subjective and objective wine knowledge.The most to least used information sources include wine list, server,self, and friends, respectively. Standard multiple regression deter-mined that level of experience influenced the use of personalinformation sources. More experience and higher levels of subjec-tive knowledge and objective knowledge all pointed to the use of selfas an information source. No significant differences were foundamong generational segments.

KEYWORDS Millennial, services marketing theory, wine, restau-rant, information sources

INTRODUCTION

Reports of gains in wine consumption since 2000 continue to be highlyattributable to the adoption of wine in early adulthood by Millennial-generation adults (Nichols, 2011). Wine can add to the dining experience,as well as the bottom line. Research has shown that the key to achievingthis is to carefully select the means of promoting wine in restaurants byintegrating a variety of methods, such as adding wine pairing suggestions to

Address correspondence to Rhonda K. Hammond, Assistant Professor, Hospitality &Restaurant Management, University of Arkansas, School of Human Environmental Sciences,HOEC 118, Fayetteville, AR 72701-1201, USA. E-mail: rkhammon@uark.edu

468

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Information Sources for Restaurant Wine Purchase 469

the menu, training the wait staff in wine education, improving the wine list,and personal selling techniques (Aspler, 1991a, 1991b; Dodd, 1997; Granucci,Huffman, & Couch, 1994; Hammond, 2007). And yet, the restaurant wine pur-chasing decision is a complex service experience and may be exacerbatedby limited information availability.

Previous research indicates that due to the intangible nature of services,purchases of services may be perceived as particularly risky (Gultek, Dodd, &Guydosh, 2006; Murray & Schlacter, 1990). Others have suggested that con-sumers acquire information as a risk reduction strategy (Lacey, Bruwer, &Li, 2009; Mitchell & Greatorex, 1989; Mitchell & McGoldrick, 1996; Spawton,1991). Dodd, Laverie, Wilcox, and Duhan (2005) found wine consumers uti-lize different information sources in relation to their experience, knowledge,and context of a wine purchase (restaurant vs. retail).

In restaurants, customers may be provided with a wine list from whichto consider their selection. Wine stewards or sommeliers and servers areyet another source of information in the restaurant environment. However,a majority of customers do not take advantage of the professionally trainedstaff in upscale restaurants to ask for assistance in their wine purchasing deci-sions (Dewald, 2008; Guseman, 1981; Lacey et al., 2009). This study identifiesinformation sources used most by Millennial consumers, compared to othergenerational market segments, to base restaurant wine purchase decisionsaccording to several wine consumer characteristics (product involvement,past experience, and subjective and objective product knowledge).

LITERATURE REVIEW

Information search can be more complex (Chaney, 2000) and stressful(Gultek et al., 2006; Ritchie, 2007) for wine consumers than in manyother product categories. Age related factors might also influence theinformation preferred by different generations of wine consumers. Thisstudy addresses this issue by comparing different generational groupsto Millennials. According to Thach and Olsen (2006), most consumerindustries in the United States are demographically segmented by four gen-erations, including Traditionalists, born before 1946 and Baby Boomers,born 1946–1964 (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002; Martin & Tulgan, 2003; U.S.Census Bureau, 2010); and Generation X, born 1965–1976 and Millennials,1977–2000 (Martin & Tulgan, 2003; Thach & Olsen, 2006).

Why Millennials?

At a population of nearly 70 million, Millennials outnumber already consumelarger quantities of wine than the Generation X-ers (Thach, 2005). Millennialscomprise a promising market with strong purchasing power representing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

470 R. Hammond et al.

a huge opportunity for many service providers (Harris Interactive, 2001;Nielsen, 2007).

Zan and Fan (2010) found more recent generational groups have beenexposed to a lifestyle that includes regularly dining out during their adoles-cent years compared to preceding generations. Those born in more recentgenerations spend and budget significantly more than those born in earliergenerational segments on food away from home (FAFH).

Millennials identify eating and drinking with discrimination as a meansof self-expression and have an affinity toward premium and imported foodand drink in general. Nielsen (2007) reported that 21–30-year-old Americansare forgoing beer in favor of wine, with beer dropping 12 percentage pointsin this age cohort over the past 10 years compared to a 6 percentage pointdrop among those over 30 years of age. Thus, U.S. Millennials are embracingthe wine culture in record numbers.

According to Phillips (2009) younger adults aged 18–34 years yield10.9 visits per year to fine dining restaurants. This trend indicates thatMillennials have higher levels of involvement associated with restaurantdining experiences, especially those experiences that may involve wine pur-chases since they consider restaurant experiences as special occasions. Thus,this group of consumers is especially important to fine dining restaurants, aswell as casual restaurants.

Restaurants can tap into this market better by recognizing the attitudesand values associated with Millennials in order to develop dining expe-riences that Millennials will value. Approximately one-third of Millennialsare interested in learning more about wine (Nielsen, 2007), presenting anopportunity for restaurants to benefit from Millennials’ desire for more wineeducation. Since Millennials are eager to learn, it is important to find outwhat information sources they employ in making restaurant wine purchas-ing decisions. Do Millennials use different information sources than othergenerations?

Services Marketing Theory

Services marketing theory (Murray, 1991) extends marketing theory, whichgenerally indicates that the greater the degree of perceived risk in a pre-purchase context, the greater the consumer propensity to seek informationabout the product. Services marketing theory indicates that consumers preferspecific types of information, particularly personal, experiential, and sub-jective (interpretive opposed to technical objective data) information, toprocess service decisions to minimize the perceived risk of service purchases(Murray, 1991). Ritchie (2007) found that consumers consider the wine pur-chase decision more stressful in the on-premise (e.g., restaurants or bars)than in the off-premise trade (e.g., supermarkets or liquor stores) due tothe public setting, lack of control over the situation, and the elevated level

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Information Sources for Restaurant Wine Purchase 471

of social risk. Therefore, services marketing theory framework is used toevaluate information sources used in the restaurant wine purchase.

Sources of Information

According to Murray (1991), consumers use two types of informationsources, generally categorized as internal and external, in a distinctive wayto reduce perceived risk associated with service purchases, as opposed topurchases of goods. Internal sources of information are important to theconsumer as they comprise the first step of the purchase decision process,namely a review of previous experience (Murray, 1991). External informationsearch is a “motivated and conscious decision made by the consumer to seeknew information from the environment . . . which can come from personalor impersonal communication” (Murray, 1991, p. 11). This study used furtherclassification of internal and external types of information sources suggestedby Dodd et al. (2005), that is, impersonal (e.g., wine guides, reviews, andadvertising), personal (e.g., friends, acquaintances, and sales personnel), andself (one’s own preferences).

Product knowledge

As Millennials have adopted an interest in learning more about wine(Nielsen, 2007), it stands to reason that their levels of knowledge may varycompared to other generational segments. Thus, the sources of informationthey prefer to base their restaurant wine purchases may be impacted by theproduct knowledge factor. Knowledge types have been found to influencepreference for the sources of information used during the purchase decisionprocess (Brucks, 1985; Dodd et al., 2005; Duhan, Johnson, Wilcox, & Harrell,1997; Park & Lessig, 1981; Rao & Monroe, 1988). Those with higher levels ofknowledge tend to consume more wine (Dodd et al., 2005; Taylor, Dodd, &Barber, 2008). Brucks (1985) described three categories of consumer knowl-edge: (a) subjective knowledge, (b) objective knowledge, and (c) previousexperience with the product.

SUBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE

Subjective knowledge has been defined as the consumer’s perceived levelof his or her knowledge (Brucks, 1985). Subjective knowledge can influencethe decision-maker’s perception of his or her ability to process information.Park and Lessig (1981) suggested that subjective knowledge levels in anindividual is a better indicator of consumer behavior as it is based uponconsumer perceptions about what he or she thinks about a product.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

472 R. Hammond et al.

OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE

Objective knowledge is defined in terms of the actual content andorganization of knowledge that is held in memory. Taylor et al. (2008)found that wine consumers’ objective knowledge is more affected by wineeducation than their perception of what they think they know (subjectiveknowledge) indicating a gap between objective and subjective knowledge.Objective knowledge has also been linked to usage experience (Doddet al., 2005; Park, Mothersbaugh, & Feick, 1994). Dodd et al. (2005) foundpreferences in information sources use was influenced by objective knowl-edge levels, but those sources varied depending on whether it was on- oroff-premise consumption situations.

EXPERIENCE

Consumers make restaurant wine purchases based on a variety of factors,including previous tastings and because they want to try something new(Thach, 2008). Additionally, some consumers make restaurant wine pur-chases impulsively (Dodd, 1997). It is also important to realize that somerestaurant wine purchasers may not be the ultimate consumer. With recenttrends including beer and cocktail pairings with food, a host may pur-chase wine for other guests while consuming a different beverage. Althoughsomeone has experience in restaurant wine purchasing, they may not haveprevious experience in tasting the wine and the reason for the purchase maynot be to try something new. For the purpose of this study, experience wasmeasured by frequency of restaurant wine purchases.

Product Involvement

The concept of involvement is an important construct in explaining con-sumer behavior. Involvement for the wine consumer is a goal oriented andemotional state of interest, enthusiasm, and excitement that is exhibitedtoward a product category, which ultimately influences purchase or con-sumption of the product (Bloch, 1986; Dodd et al., 2005; Goldsmith, 2000;Yuan, So, & Chakravarty, 2005). Highly involved consumers often spend timereading specialty magazines, lingering in retail stores, talking to sales people,and discussing their hobby with friends (Dodd et al., 2005; Goldsmith, 2000;Lockshin, Quester, & Spawton, 2001; Lockshin & Spawton, 2001; Lockshin,Spawton, & Macintosh, 1997; Quester & Smart, 1998). These highly involvedconsumers utilize more complex information cues, buy more wine, andspend more per bottle than low-involvement buyers. Low-involvement con-sumers, on the other hand, tend to simplify their choices and use riskreduction strategies (Yuan et al., 2005).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Information Sources for Restaurant Wine Purchase 473

Research Questions and Hypotheses

To identify what consumer characteristics predict the information sourcesused by a younger sample, this research examined the following poten-tial factors: consumer wine knowledge, past experience with wine, productinvolvement, and demographic characteristics to determine influence oninformation source used, whether it be impersonal, personal, or self. Thethree types of knowledge (subjective, objective, and experience) are con-sidered to be positively correlated with one another, yet they are distinctcomponents in the consumer decision process (Raju, Lonial, & Mangold,1995). Based on the differences in consumer behavior outlined by pre-vious research (Dodd et al., 2005; Gluckman, 1990; Kolyesnikova, 2006;Lockshin et al., 2001; Lockshin et al., 1997; Park et al., 1994; Raju et al., 1995;Rasmussen, 2001; Spawton, 1991), it is expected that information sourcesused by consumers with different levels of product involvement, subjec-tive knowledge, objective knowledge, and past experience will be different.Specifically, it stands to reason that different levels of product involvement,consumer knowledge about wine, and past experience with wine will pre-dict the use of different information sources. This study intends to addressthe following research questions:

RQ1: What source(s) of information (impersonal, personal, or self) dorestaurant wine consumers use to make restaurant wine purchases?

RQ2: Is there a difference among generational segments of informationsource use?

INVOLVEMENT

According to Dodd et al. (2005) consumers with higher levels of involvementtend to focus on the attributes associated with wine and the wine makingprocess, while those with lower levels of product involvement tend to relyon external factors, such as price. Low-involvement consumers may also beunwilling to talk to the wait staff at restaurants to minimize the potentialembarrassment of being perceived as less knowledgeable. Therefore, thosewith low levels of product involvement might use impersonal sources in arestaurant setting, such as the wine list. Therefore, it is expected that:

H1: Lower levels of wine involvement will predict the use of moreimpersonal information sources.

EXPERIENCE

Park and Lessig (1981) found that when an individual goes from low- tohigh-product familiarity associated with usage, the individual’s confidence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

474 R. Hammond et al.

level increases. With increased confidence, the consumer may be less con-cerned with social risks and may engage personal information sources.Therefore it is expected that:

H2: Higher levels of past experience with wine will predict the use ofmore personal information sources.

According to Dodd et al. (2005, p. 7), “after a person has gained someexperience, he or she can use their own preferences that are availableinstantly and do not involve a delay in the decision process.” With improvedconfidence may come the increased potential to use one’s self. This leads tothe expectation that:

H3: More experience will lead to the use of self as an information source.

SUBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE

Dodd et al. (2005) and Gultek et al. (2006) found that higher levels ofsubjective knowledge were positively related to using self as a source ofinformation and also led to a decrease in the use of personal sources ofinformation. Based on this information, the following hypothesis was tested:

H4: Higher levels of subjective knowledge will predict the likelihood ofusing self as an information source.

OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE

Dodd et al. (2005) also found high levels of objective knowledge to bedirectly related to using impersonal sources of information for restaurantconsumption and negatively related to using self as a source of information.However, previous research (Chaney, 2000) has shown that the informationmost used in retail environments includes point of sale information, as thisprovides convenient and readily available information at the time of decision.It seems reasonable to assume that the preferred information source wouldbe the most convenient source available to the consumer. In the restaurant,the wine list would act as point of sale information for the guest. However,if the guest is familiar with the choices (as a regular guest may be) or withthe wines (as a knowledgeable consumer may be) he or she may depend onpersonal knowledge, that is, one’s self. At the same time, objective knowl-edge is acquired from various impersonal sources, such as literature aboutwine, online sources, and reviews. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assumethat restaurant wine consumers with high levels of objective knowledge mayalso be more apt to use either impersonal information sources (e.g., a wine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Information Sources for Restaurant Wine Purchase 475

list, advertising, media, reviews, or wine guides) or self as an informationsource. Thus, the following hypothesis was explored:

H5: Higher levels of objective knowledge, will lead to the use of moreimpersonal sources (e.g., wine guides, reviews, or advertising).

METHOD

Data Collection Sample and Procedures

Of the original 394 total responses, 330 cases were complete and metminimum legal drinking age (21 years of age) requirements to analyze.Males represented 34.5% of cases and 65.5% of cases were female, whichis consistent with other studies reporting similar gender representation inwine consumer samples (e.g., Kolyesnikova, Dodd, & Wilcox, 2009). Theaverage age of the participants was 34 years with ages ranging from 21 to73 years. Fifty-seven percent were Millennials. Participants were elicited fromundergraduate and graduate students taking various hospitality courses inthe hospitality program of a large Southwestern university. Studies wereannounced to students enrolled in a variety courses and through postingthe URL on the department’s Web site and Facebook pages.

Measures

A number of the constructs associated with this study have been the sub-ject of previous wine marketing research. Subjective product knowledgewas measured by utilizing the subjective knowledge scales developed byBrucks (1985). Objective product knowledge was measured by providingfive specific multiple choice questions on wine knowledge based on previ-ous studies (Dodd et al., 2005) Correct answers were coded as “1” and “0” forincorrect answers. The sum of correct answers served as a measure of objec-tive knowledge. Past experience was measured by asking questions aboutrestaurant wine purchase frequency. Product involvement was measured uti-lizing Srinivasan’s and Ratchford’s Product Involvement Scale (1991) basedon its association with external search efforts associated with purchases. Thescale was modified to focus on wine as the product category.

Additional multiple choice questions were asked to determine infor-mation sources used by the participant based on the sources used in Doddet al.’s (2005) study including self (one’s own preferences), personal sources(friends, acquaintances, sales personnel, etc.), and impersonal sources(wine guides, reviews, advertising, etc.). The survey also included questionson demographics, such as gender, state of residence, income, education,and race.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

476 R. Hammond et al.

RESULTS

Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Sampled Population

Data were collected via an online survey created using Qualtrics, a soft-ware developed for online survey development (http://www.qualtrics.com).A total of 330 usable responses were collected and used for data analysis.More than 43% of the sample reported total annual household income lev-els below $40,000. This may be because 31.2% of the respondents reportedhaving less than a bachelor’s degree. Just over 8% reported total annualhousehold income levels between $110,000 and $119,000. Participantsreported considerably higher levels of education than the general U.S. pop-ulation. Sixty four percent of the participants had at least a bachelor’s degreeor higher. For comparison, the U.S. Census Bureau reported 24.4% of the U.S.population had a bachelor’s degree or higher in 2008 (U.S. Census Bureau,2010). Table 1 provides a detailed description of the sociodemographiccharacteristics of the sample.

Restaurant Wine Consumption Characteristics

To determine past experience with restaurant wine purchasing, participantswere asked how frequently they dined at restaurants that serve wine andhow frequently they ordered wine at restaurants. Results are summarized inTable 2.

DATA ANALYSIS

Factor analysis was computed to assess the structures of the variables,followed by the computation of reliability coefficients. Correlation analy-sis was employed to examine the relationships between variables. Finally,multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine variables that predictinformation sources used by restaurant wine consumers.

Factor Analysis

The construct of involvement comprised a six-item scale, and the constructof subjective knowledge comprised a four-item scale. These constructs wereevaluated using principal components analysis (PCA). Prior to performingPCA, the suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value was 0.91 exceeding the recommended value of 0.60, andthe Barlett’s test of sphericity reached statistical significance, supporting thefactorability of the correlation matrix (Pallant, 2005). A scree test revealedthat two components should be extracted. The first component includeditems associated with involvement and, thus, was labeled Involvement. Thesecond component grouped items associated with subjective knowledge and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Information Sources for Restaurant Wine Purchase 477

TABLE 1 Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Sampled Population

Trait Frequency (N = 330) Percent

GenderMale 114 34.5Female 216 65.5

GenerationMillennials 188 57Generation X 63 19.1Baby Boomers 73 22.1Traditionalists 6 1.8

Income$19,999 or less 147 23.9$20,000–$39,999 68 20.6$40,000–$49,999 25 7.6$50,000–$59,999 19 5.8$60,000–$69,999 20 6.1$70,000–$79,999 18 5.5$80,000–$89,999 21 6.4$90,000–$99,999 12 3.6$100,000–$119,999 27 8.2$120,000–$139,999 14 4.2$140,000–$159,999 7 2.1$160,000 or more 20 6.1

EducationHigh school/diploma/GED 8 2.4Some college work 95 28.8Bachelor’s degree 116 35.2Master’s degree 61 18.5Doctoral degree 28 8.5Professional degree (JD, MD) 6 1.8

EthnicityWhite/Caucasian 258 78.2African American 8 2.4Hispanic 28 8.5Asian 27 8.2Native American 1 0.3Pacific Islander 1 0.3Other 7 2.1

was labeled Subjective Knowledge. The two factors solution showed goodinternal consistency. Like Srinivasan’s and Ratchford’s Product InvolvementScale (1991), construct reliability was an alpha of 0.86 for Involvement whileSubjective Knowledge reported 0.87.

Analyses of Research Questions

RESEARCH QUESTION 1: ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION SOURCES USED MOST

Out of the 10 information sources options that participants could choosefrom to address Research Question 1, the sources used the most includedwine list at 78.48 %, server at 76.36%, self at 65.15 %, and friends at 64.55%.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

478 R. Hammond et al.

TABLE 2 Frequency of Restaurant Dining and Ordering Wine in a Restaurant

Restaurant dining Frequency Percent Cumulative percent

Never 3 0.9 0.9Less than once a month 35 10.6 11.5Once a month 44 13.3 24.82–3 times a month 140 42.4 67.3Once a week 71 21.5 88.82–3 times a week 37 11.2 100.0Total 330 100.0

Ordering wine in arestaurantNever 40 12.1 12.1Less than once a month 92 27.9 40.0Once a month 89 27.0 67.02–3 times a month 80 24.2 91.2Once a week 21 6.4 97.62–3 time a week 8 2.4 100.0Total 330 100.0

RESEARCH QUESTION 2: GENERATIONAL USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES

In order to compare generational use of information sources and addressResearch Question 2, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was con-ducted to evaluate the relationship between generations (Traditionalists,Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials) and types of personal andimpersonal information sources used. There were no significant differencesin personal or impersonal information source usage between the genera-tions. A one-sample chi-square test revealed no significant difference in selfused as an information source across the generational segments.

Analyses of Hypotheses

IMPERSONAL INFORMATION SOURCE USE PREDICTED BY INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES

Hypotheses 1 and 5 examined which independent variables (involvement,subjective knowledge, objective knowledge, and experience) would pre-dict the use of the dependent variable—impersonal information sources.A standard multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate thesehypotheses. The linear combination of the four predictor variables was sig-nificantly related to the criterion variable of impersonal information source[F(4,325) = 7.41, p < 0.001].

Although the overall model was significant, none of the indepen-dent variables alone made a significant, unique contribution to the pre-diction of impersonal information source use in making a restaurant

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Information Sources for Restaurant Wine Purchase 479

wine purchasing decision. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was not supported.Additionally, Hypothesis 5 was also not supported.

PERSONAL INFORMATION SOURCE USE PREDICTED BY EXPERIENCE

Hypothesis 2 stated that higher levels of past experience with wine wouldpredict the use of more personal information sources. Personal informa-tion sources were measured as the sum of personal sources the participantsindicated they used.

A standard multiple regression analyses was conducted to test thishypothesis. The linear combination of the four predictor variables was sig-nificantly related to the criterion variable of personal information source use.A significant regression equation was found [F(4,325) = 5.95, p < 0.001].Indices to indicate the relative strength of the individual predictors are pre-sented in Table 3. As expected, the regression coefficients of frequency ofordering wine in a restaurant (experience) and the use of personal informa-tion sources was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Experience accounted for2.31% of the variance of personal information source use, while the otherthree variables were not significant.

The relationship between experience and use of personal informa-tion sources is positively correlated suggesting that the more frequently anindividual orders wine in a restaurant, the more likely he or she will use per-sonal information sources to make awine purchasing decision. Therefore,Hypothesis 2 was supported: The more experience, the more personalinformation sources will be used by the consumer.

SELF USED AS AN INFORMATION SOURCE PREDICTED BY INDEPENDENT

VARIABLES

For self, we tested Hypothesis 3, which predicted that more experiencewould lead to the use of self as an information source, and Hypothesis 4,

TABLE 3 Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Personal Information Sources

B SE B β P-value

Involvement 0.186 0.096 0.146 0.053Subjective knowledge −0.142 0.099 −0.119 0.152Objective knowledge 0.071 0.047 0.096 0.131Experience 0.151 0.054∗ 0.182 0.006R2 0.068F 5.95∗∗

∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

480 R. Hammond et al.

which stated that higher levels of subjective knowledge will predict thelikelihood of using self as an information source. Because the dependentvariable was of binary nature (a “yes” or “no” response), a standard logisticregression analysis was performed.

According to the omnibus tests of model coefficients all four predictorsagainst a constant-only model was found to be statistically significant, χ2 (4,N = 330) = 76.25, p < 0.001, indicating that the predictors, as a set, reliablydistinguished between use of self as an information source in making arestaurant wine purchasing decision.

According to the Wald criterion, only subjective knowledge reliably pre-dicted the use of self as an information source, χ2 (1, N = 330) = 27.27, p <

0.001. The B value of 4.12 indicates that the higher the subjective knowledgelevel, the more likely the use of self as an information source will be. Theconfidence intervals indicate that the odds of a person using self as an infor-mation source is significantly higher for someone who reports a high level ofsubjective knowledge (OR = 4.12, CI = 2.42, 7.00, p < 0.05). Thus, the levelof subjective knowledge distinguishes use of self as an information source inrestaurant wine purchase decision-making supports Hypothesis 4. However,Hypothesis 5 was not supported: More experience does not predict the useof self as an information source.

DISCUSSION

Impersonal Information Sources

It appears that levels of involvement, subjective knowledge, objective knowl-edge, and experience do not independently predict the use of impersonalsources to base restaurant wine purchasing decisions. With the model itselfindicating 8.4% of variability in the use of impersonal sources, it standsto reason that other factors may have a stronger influence on impersonalsources used. As this sample is largely represented by Millennials at 57%, itseems plausible that those with lower levels of involvement may be moreinfluenced by their friends and dining companions (personal informationsources), which is in the same line of findings from previous research (Doddet al., 2005). However, involvement level is a factor that warrants furtherattention based on the resulting p-value.

Personal Information Source

Based on our findings, we can see that the model is related to the use ofpersonal information sources with level of experience significantly predictingthe use of personal information sources. In this case, the more frequently

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Information Sources for Restaurant Wine Purchase 481

a consumer makes restaurant wine purchases, the more they tend to usepersonal sources, which contradicts findings from previous research (Doddet al., 2005) that found more restaurant wine purchasing experience directlyenhanced subjective knowledge, which related to use of self and impersonalsources use. Services marketing theory however, indicates that consumersprefer personal information sources associated with service purchases tominimize the perceive risk (Murray, 1991). The results from this researchsupport the theory.

Self as Information Source

As expected, higher levels of subjective knowledge predict the use of selfas source of information. This follows previous findings indicating that sub-jective knowledge effects self-confidence (Barber, 2008; Dodd et al., 2005;Park & Lessig, 1981; Raju et al., 1995). Although previous research indicatesthat experience increases subjective and objective knowledge, which in turnrelates to use of self as an information source (Dodd et al., 2005; Gulteket al., 2006), the results of this study do not support this finding. More expe-rience was not found to predict the use of self as an information source forthis sample.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Results from this study indicate that consumers do indeed use a vari-ety of information sources to base restaurant wine purchasing decisions.Information sources used most to base restaurant win purchases on includewine list, server, self, and friends.

Based on previous research indicating the many differences associatedwith generational groups, it was expected to find differences in informationsources used by consumers to make restaurant wine purchases. This sam-ple indicated no significant differences in information source use. Overall,the four consumer behavior characteristics of interest including level ofinvolvement, subjective knowledge, objective knowledge, and experiencewere found to be a significant model in predicting the use of informationsources (impersonal, personal, and self) empirically supporting a numberof the hypotheses developed for this study. A positive relationship wasfound between experience in restaurant wine ordering and the use of per-sonal information sources further supported Murray’s (1991) proposition ofService Marketing Theory that consumers prefer specific types of informationsources. As expected, a positive correlation was also found in the relation-ship between subjective knowledge and use of self as an information source

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

482 R. Hammond et al.

further supporting previous findings indicating that subjective knowledgeaffects self-confidence.

It seemed reasonable to assume that those with lower levels of involve-ment would be more inclined to minimize the risk of being perceived as lessknowledgeable by employing impersonal information sources, such as thewine list, in order to choose a familiar brand and to avoid processing thecomplex information. In fact, this was not supported in the current research,but nor was there any indication that lower levels of involvement wouldpredict the use of personal information sources either, as Rasmussen (2001)noted. It may be that the participants do not use information sources andhave no interest in processing it.

As experience was shown to influence the use of personal informa-tion sources, and server is considered a personal source, it stands to reasonthat the service experience may influence a consumer’s ability to processinformation. In other words, if a consumer relies on the server for winepurchasing information and the server is poorly trained, the consumer maybe unable to get the information needed to make the purchase decision.This, in turn, may lead to the loss of a customer, or negative word ofmouth.

Findings from this research agree that consumers tend to utilize sourcesother than professionally trained staff for information on which to basetheir restaurant wine purchase decisions. However, findings also indicatethat servers are rated in the top four information sources used, so servertraining should be a major management consideration to ensure a qualityservice experience for the consumer. Millennials are characterized in part by(a) their desire to learn more about wine, (b) peer influence, and (c) thedesire to just have fun. From this it seems reasonable to make sure serversare trained and wine lists are designed to address these qualities. Since expe-rience improves knowledge leading to improved confidence, which, in turn,leads to more use of self as an information source, it is valuable for restau-rants to provide the best service experience. As consumers develop theirknowledge, they may associate their positive learning experiences with therestaurant. Since no significant differences were found across generationalsegments, these implications are practical and cost effective to apply acrossall market segmentations.

Another implication involves the idea that Millennials are interested inlearning more about wine. This is an opportunity that restaurants shouldexplore. With each restaurant dining experience that involves a wine pur-chase, the Millennial consumer gains more knowledge. It seems logical thatit would be important to provide information in the preferred manner soMillennials relate their learning experience positively and associate this pos-itivity with the restaurant. This, in turn, may insure a repeat customer andpositive word of mouth.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Information Sources for Restaurant Wine Purchase 483

REFERENCES

Aspler, T. (1991a). The silent wine steward: A successful wine list ensures increasedwine sales. Foodservice and Hospitality, 24, 42–43.

Aspler, T. (1991b). Wine stewards: A necessity or a luxury? Foodservice andHospitality, 24, 41–43.

Barber, N. (2008). How self-confidence and knowledge effects the sources of infor-mation selected during purchase situations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.

Bloch, P. H. (1986). The product enthusiast: Implications for marketing strategy.Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3(3), 51–62.

Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information searchbehavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(1), 1–16.

Chaney, I. M. (2000). External search effort for wine. International Journal of WineMarketing, 12(2), 5–21.

Dewald, B. W. (2008). The role of the sommeliers and their influence on U.S.restaurant wine sales. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 20(2),111–123.

Dodd, T. H. (1997). Techniques to increase impulse wine purchases in a restaurantsetting. Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing, 2, 63–73.

Dodd, T. H., Laverie, D. A., Wilcox, J. F., & Duhan, D. F. (2005). Differential effectsof experience, subjective knowledge, and objective knowledge on sourcesof information used in consumer wine purchasing. Journal of Hospitality &Tourism Research, 29, 3–19.

Duhan, D. F., Johnson, S. D., Wilcox, J. B., & Harrell, G. D. (1997). Influenceson consumer use of word-of-mouth recommendation sources. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 25, 283–295.

Gluckman, R. L. (1990). A consumer approach to branded wines. InternationalJournal of Wine Marketing, 2(1), 27–46.

Goldsmith, R. E. (2000). Identifying wine innovators: A test of the domain spe-cific innovativeness scale using known groups. International Journal of WineMarketing, 12(2), 37–46.

Granucci, P. R., Huffman, V. L., & Couch, A. S. (1994). Effects of wine training onrestaurant sales of wine. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 6(3), 11–19.

Gultek, M. M., Dodd, T. H., & Guydosh, R. M. (2006). Attitudes towards wine-servicetraining and its influence on restaurant wine sales. International Journal ofHospitality Management, 25, 432–446.

Guseman, D. (1981). Risk perception and risk reduction in consumer services. Paperpresented at the Marketing of Services, Chicago, IL.

Hammond, R. (2007). Consumers’ restaurant wine service point of sale informationpreferences: The impact of providing specific wine pairing suggestions on a menu(Unpublished master’s thesis). Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

Harris Interactive. (2001). Millennium’s first college grads are ‘connected, career-minded and confident—way! Retrieved from http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=292

Kolyesnikova, N. (2006). Gratuity purchasing at wineries: The role of gratitude andobligation in purchases by winery visitors (Unpublished doctorial dissertation).Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

484 R. Hammond et al.

Kolyesnikova, N., Dodd, T. H., & Wilcox, J. F. (2009). Gender as a moderator ofreciprocal consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26 , 200–213.

Lacey, S., Bruwer, J., & Li, E. (2009). The role of perceived risk in wine purchasedecisions in restaurants. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 21,99–117.

Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide: Who they are, whythey clash, how to solve the generational puzzle at work. New York, NY: CollinsBusiness.

Lockshin, L., Quester, P., & Spawton, T. (2001). Segmentation by involvement ornationality for global retailing: A cross-national comparative study of wineshopping behaviors. Journal of Wine Research, 12, 223–236.

Lockshin, L., & Spawton, T. (2001). Using involvement and brand equity to developa wine tourism strategy. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 13(1), 72–81.

Lockshin, L., Spawton, T., & Macintosh, G. (1997). Using product, brand and pur-chasing involvement for retail segmentation. Journal of Retailing and ConsumerServices, 4, 171–183.

Martin, C. A., & Tulgan, B. (2003). Managing the generation mix from collisionto collaboration. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, 2003(12),975–983.

Mitchell, V. W., & Greatorex, M. (1989). Risk-reduction strategies used in the pur-chase of wine in the UK. International Journal of Wine Business Marketing,1(2), 31–46.

Mitchell, V. W., & McGoldrick, P. J. (1996). Consumer’s risk-reduction strategies:A review and synthesis. The International Review of Retail, Distribution andConsumer Research, 6 , 1–33.

Murray, K. B. (1991). A test of services marketing theory: Consumer informationacquisition activities. Journal of Marketing, 55(1), 10–25.

Murray, K. B., & Schlacter, J. L. (1990). The impact of services versus goods onconsumers’ assessment of perceived risk and variability. Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science, 18, 51–65.

Nichols, R. (2011). U.S. wine consumer trends: Boomers’ tastes evolve, Millennialscontinue to drive market growth. WineBusiness.com. Retrieved from http://www.winebusiness.com/news/?go=getArticle&dataid=83196

Nielsen. (2007). Millennial consumers seek new tastes, willing to pay a premiumfor alcoholic beverages. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2007/Millennial_Consumers_Seek_New_Tastes_Willing_to_Pay_a_Premium_for_Alcoholic_Beverages.html

Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS Survival manual (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Open UniversityPress.

Park, C. W., & Lessig, V. P. (1981). Familiarity and its impact on con-sumer decision biases and heuristics. Journal of Consumer Research, 8,223–230.

Park, C. W., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Feick, L. (1994). Consumer knowledgeassessment. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 71–82.

Phillips, C. (2009). Millennial marketing: Full-service restaurants work hard to keepMillennials. Retrieved from http://www.millennialmarketing.com/2009/04/full-service-restaurants-work-hard-to-keep-millennials/

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Information Sources for Restaurant Wine Purchase 485

Quester, P. G., & Smart, J. (1998). The influence of consumption situation and prod-uct involvement over consumers’ use of product attribute. Journal of ConsumerMarketing, 15, 220–238.

Raju, P. S., Lonial, S. C., & Mangold, W. G. (1995). Differential effects of subjectiveknowledge, objective knowledge, and usage experience on decisions making:An exploratory investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(2), 153–180.

Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1988). The moderating effect for prior knowledgeon cue utilization in product evaluations Journal of Consumer Research, 15,253–264.

Rasmussen, M. (2001). The effect of region of origin on consumer choice behaviour(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.

Ritchie, C. (2007). Beyond drinking: The role of wine in the life of the UK consumer.International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31, 534–540.

Spawton, T. (1991). Of wine and live asses: An introduction to the wine economyand state of wine marketing. European Journal of Wine Marketing, 25(3), 1–48.

Srinivasan, N., & Ratchford, B. T. (1991). An empirical test of a model of externalsearch for automobiles. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(2), 233–242.

Taylor, D. C., Dodd, T. H., & Barber, N. (2008). Impact of wine education ondeveloping knowledge and preferences: An exploratory study. Journal of WineResearch, 19, 193–207.

Thach, L. (2005, December). How to market to Millenials. Wine Business Monthly,60–64.

Thach, L. (2008, June). How American consumers select wine. Wine BusinessMonthly. Retrieved from http://www.winebusinessmonthly.com/wbm/?go=getArticle&dataId=56883

Thach, L., & Olsen, J. E. (2006). Market segment analysis to target young adult winedrinkers. Agribusiness, 22, 307–322.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). USA QuickFacts. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Wine Market Council. (2008). Wine Market Council’s 2008 consumer tracking study.Retrieved from http://www.winemarketcouncil.com/research_summary.asp

Yuan, J., So, S. I., & Chakravarty, S. (2005). To wine or not to wine: Profiling awine enthusiast for a successful list. Journal of Nutrition in Recipe & MenuDevelopment, 3(3/4), 63–79.

Zan, H. U. A., & Fan, J. X. (2010). Cohort effects of household expenditures on foodaway from home. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44(1), 213–233.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014